Social Inequalities

Social inequalities are something of a fact of life. In all of human history there have been

upsets, riots, and even wars over the idea that someone could be higher up on a social ladder than

another. It is ingrained in our very nature for us to be different from each other, and perhaps in

that difference comes a desire for indifference. Sociologists analyze ideas such as these and

come up with different theories and ideas to answer one of the main questions dealing with social

inequality; “Why do social classes exist?” To most sociologists, there are three main ways of

answering this question. There is the structural-functionalism theory where essentially society is

seen as a big organism and each social class is an organ inside of that organism that helps it

survive. Structural-functionalism states that all classes are equally important and that society is

dependent on all of them, because without a specific organ, the organism would die. This theory

also states that society has evolved like an organism, strengthening the analogy of society being

an organism. 1

Then there is social-conflict theory; created by the founding father of Marxism, Karl

Marx. Social-conflict theory states that in any and every society, there are essentially two

classes, the haves and the have-nots or the ruling class and the subject class. The social-conflict

theory states that the ruling class will always benefit from the subject class, but not vice-versa.

For example, a tenant may pay rent to a landlord for thirty years but will never gain

ownership of that property. In this scenario the landlord is the ruling class because he is

benefiting from the tenant paying rent every month for thirty years, and the tenant is the subject

class because while he is paying rent he will never own the property he pays rent to the landlord

1
“Princeton.edu”
for. Finally, you have the theory of symbolic-interactionism. Created by George Herbert Mead

and Charles Horton Cooley, this theory stems from the pragmatism of Americans and states three

basic things. That humans act towards thing on the basis of meaning, that the meaning of such

things is derived from social interaction that one has with society, and that these meanings are

handled in and modified through an interpretive process.

All three of these theories are used every day by sociologists worldwide. Some

sociologists prefer the theory of symbolic-interactionism, while others ascribe to the social-

conflict theory. It is all up to the sociologist’s opinion and view of society also. The theory that

makes the most sense to me is the idea of structural-functionalism. While social-conflict theory

and symbolic-interactionism do have some p lace in sociology, I do not believe that they are the

theories one would use to answer a question about social class. Some might argue that social-

conflict theory is specifically about social class, but to me it feels like it is making social class

out to be this evil thing with terms such as the “haves and have-nots” and the “proletariat and

bourgeois” but in the grand scheme of things, social class is an integral part of society. Without

social class, there would be no organization to our society. All strife created by social class can

be resolved with changes, but you cannot completely destroy social class in any society, or you

end up with something that is far more unequal than it appears to be.2

Social class in the United States is believed by most Americans to be a three tiered

system. To most, it is comprised of the upper class, the middle class, and the working class.

However, it is not always what it seems to be. Social class is the grouping of people into a

hierarchy or tiers that are dependent on amount of wealth, education, occupation, and social

2
“Kingsbury, Nancy”
standing. These tiers have differing access to things such as health care, proper nutrition, higher

education, political participation, and experience with justice systems.3

For example, an African American male in the working class may never be able to step

foot into a University as a student and will be more likely to run into the law. But that does not

mean that just because he is more likely to fall into the same “trap” of his class, that he is unable

to rise out of his respective class into a higher one. The same can go for an upper class white

male who has the fullest access possible to the best education and healthcare, he can still fall

down to a lower class. It is not a glass ceiling type of system, where people of opposing classes

can never move down or up through it.

Structural functionalism in no way states that lower classes are inferior or even worthless.

To a structural functionalist, every member of every class plays an integral role in society. A

working class ditch digger might be looked down upon by those in the upper class and even

middle class, but that does not mean that society would be easier or better without them. Because

if there are no ditch diggers or any other working class occupations, most of society’s structure

begins to fall apart. The working class provides the basis for society and helps it function while

the middle and upper classes are usually things such as doctors, lawyers, and businessmen.

Janitors, repairmen, and other jobs are seen as working class jobs, but without them our society

would be broken and dirty in a literal and metaphorical sense.

Structural functionalism has seven key points. These points range from the individual, to

the family unit, to entire communities. The first point is that a society may be constant or have a

laid out order of changes. The second point is that societies aim for equilibrium, which is

3
“Boundless”
complete balance. This helps lead to the organism analogy, because much like an organism

societies depend on complete balance in between different parts to help the entire system work.

The third point is that allocation and integration of labor and societal positions helps maintain the

equilibrium and balance of the system. The fourth point is that the problems of one part of the

system affect the other parts ability to function. The fifth point is that societies have a property of

order and depend on the other parts; they are only held together by cooperation and orderliness

of each and every individual. The sixth point is that systems maintain borders within their

respective environments. And finally, the seventh point is that systems have a tendency towards

autonomy in respect to boundaries and relationships.4

An individual’s place in society is based upon three of the above provisions according to

structural functionalism. These three provisions are status, role, and need. Status is one’s actual

position in society. A president of a corporation will have more status opposed to a manager of a

corporation. Individual’s statuses can be hierarchical like the example of working, middle, and

upper classes in the United States or they can be somewhat equal positions, such as significant

other, cousin, father, and mother. The second provision is role, and the role of an individual is

essentially what they do. The role of a janitor would be to clean. Some structural functionalists

do not look at what individuals perform in society, but instead how well they perform their role.

The final provision is need, which is the idea that in every society there is a need for certain roles

to be carried out in order for equilibrium to be reached. In a corporation, there would be a need

for a manager to manage the actual store and a president to oversee the whole company.5

4
“UNC.edu”
5
“uregina.ca”
 Structural functionalism as a whole theory focuses on the macro level of society. This

means that instead of looking deeply into the inner workings of society and answering questions

such as “why do these individuals do this”, structural functionalists instead look at the bigger

picture. They look at corporations and whole communities to piece together information about

that society at hand. To some structural functionalists, they believe that for in order for society to

run properly, there must be motivation and reward for individuals. In a working environment, the

motivation for the employees to work in that position must come from an outside source.

However the reward, which would be payment, would come from the company or place of work

and would further instill that motivation to work.

To understand social class in the United States one must look at the bigger picture. To a

structural functionalist, social class must be viewed as a whole problem and not just class strife

between two factions like social conflict theory. Social class is a complex organism that has

several parts to it, and no part is truly more important in the grand scheme of things than the

others. And if one part stops working, then the rest of the parts in the system will either have to

work harder to make up for the void or the system will stop working. And that can be seen in

revolts all over the world and throughout time. From the proletariat and the bourgeois to the

Egyptian Revolution of 2011, there have been examples of what happens whenever equilibrium

in a society is disrupted.

Works Cited:

1. Functionalism (sociology). (n.d.). Functionalism (sociology). Retrieved December 3, 2013, from

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Functionalism_(sociology).html

2. Kingsbury, N. (n.d.). Structural Functionalism. Illinois Wesleyan University. Retrieved December 3, 2013,

from http://sun.iwu.edu/~cisabell/courses/ocs223/course/articles/structural_functionalism.pdf
3. Social Class in the U.S.. (n.d.). Boundless. Retrieved December 3, 2013, from

https://www.boundless.com/sociology/understanding-stratification-inequality-and-social-class-in-

the-u-s/social-class-in-the-u-s/social-class-in-the-u-s/

4. Structural Functionalism. (n.d.). UNC.edu. Retrieved December 3, 2013, from

http://www.unc.edu/~kbm/SOCI10Spring2004/Structural_Functionalism.doc%E2%80%8Ewww.unc.edu/~

kbm/SOCI10Spring2004/Structural_Functionalism.doc%E2%80%8E

5. Notes on Structural Functionalism and Parsons. (n.d.). Notes on Structural Functionalism and Parsons.

Retrieved December 3, 2013, from http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/250m3103.htm